Suppose $\mathcal M, \mathcal N \models T$, $\mathcal M \subseteq \mathcal N$, $\mathcal M$ existentially closed, then I I want to prove that there is $\mathcal M_1 \models T$ so that $\mathcal M \subseteq \mathcal N \subseteq \mathcal M_1$ with $\mathcal M \prec \mathcal M_1$.


Create $\mathcal L_N$ theory $T' = Diag_{el}(\mathcal M) \cup Diag(\mathcal N)$ and show that T' is satisfiable. If so let $\mathcal M_1 \models T'$.

Let $\triangle \subseteq T'$, $\triangle$ some arbitrary finite subset, and by compactness if all such $\triangle$'s are satisfiable, then $T'$ is satisfiable. Now I am having trouble proving how $\triangle$ is satisfiable.

Suppose $\triangle = \Gamma \cup \Sigma$ where $\Gamma = \{\phi : \phi \in Diag_{el} \mathcal M \cap \triangle\}$ and $\Sigma = \{\psi : \psi \in Diag(\mathcal N) \cap \triangle\}$, then if $\triangle$ is inconsistent, we have for $\bar{b} \in \mathbb N, \bar{a} \in \mathbb M$:

$$\Gamma \models \neg \Big(\bigwedge \psi(\bar{b},\bar{a})\Big)\\ \Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \psi(\bar{b},\bar{a})\\ \Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \exists \bar x \psi(\bar{x},\bar{a})\\ \Gamma \models \neg (\exists \bar x \psi(\bar{x},\bar{a})).$$

But since $\mathcal M$ is existentially closed, we know whenver $\mathcal N \models \exists \bar x\psi(\bar{x},\bar{a})$, $\mathcal M \models \exists \bar x \psi(\bar x, \bar a)$, a contradiction.

So my problems is that I am not sure if the first line in the statement is correct, in particular $\psi$ is a sentence from $Diag(\mathcal N)$ but could have parameters in $\mathbb M$? And feel free to point out any other wrong statements in my argument.


1 Answer 1


A few scattered comments.

1) You need to ensure that $\bar{b} \in \mathbb{N} - \mathbb{M}$ in order for your step from $\Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \psi(\bar{b}, \bar{a})$ to $\Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$ to work. This is simply a matter of rewriting the members of $\Sigma$ -- a technicality at best.

2.a) The step from $\Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$ to $\Gamma \models \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$ does not make any sense because of the $\psi$ in the last expression. What is $\psi$ here?

2.b) What you really want to do is exclude the last step that contains the mysterious $\psi$ and derive the contradiction directly from $\Gamma \models \bigvee \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$. Since $\mathcal{M} \models \Gamma$, you have derived that $\mathcal{M} \models \bigvee \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$. But for each such $\psi \in \Sigma$ we have that $\mathcal{N} \models \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$, and hence as $\mathcal{M}$ is existentially closed in $\mathcal{N}$ we have that $\mathcal{M} \models \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a})$ as well. Therefore $\mathcal{M} \models \neg (\bigvee \neg \exists \bar{x} \psi(\bar{x}, \bar{a}))$, a contradiction. You wrote this part in your argument.

3) In my opinion it is best not to prove the satisfiability of $\Delta$ by contradiction but rather prove it directly. Do this as follows. Simply write $\Delta = \{\phi_1(\bar{m}), \ldots, \phi_t(\bar{m}), \psi_1(\bar{n}), \ldots, \psi_u(\bar{n})\}$ wherein the $\phi_i$ are in $Diag_{el}(\mathcal{M})$ and the $\psi_j$ are in $Diag(\mathcal{N})$, as you have written. Now simply replace the $\bar{n}$ by elements of $\mathcal{M}$ by using the fact that $\mathcal{M}$ is existentially closed in $\mathcal{N}$. This gives you a way of satisfying $\Delta$ using $\mathcal{M}$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.